Tories wary about plugging Trump gap in family planning funding

The hastily convened global gathering of governments in Brussels to pledge tens of millions of euros to family planning charities who had their US funding pulled by Donald Trump’s so-called “global gag” has been a tightrope to walk for the British government.

Trump reinstated the rule by executive order in his first few days in the White House, meaning US government funding cannot be provided to charities whose work includes offering abortion services.

Perhaps more than any other country, the UK has been keen to demonstrate that, whatever the concerns about the Trump administration, the answer is engagement rather than isolation. In January, Theresa May became the first foreign leader to meet the US president on a trip criticised by some as overly hasty. Given the UK’s need for new and fast free trade partners after the exit from the EU, such a position is perhaps unavoidable.

Viewed through this prism, its decision to send Rory Stewart, a junior minister, rather than Priti Patel, the secretary of state for international development, could be interpreted as a mild snub to the She Decides conference, an event intended by its organisers to be a symbol of solidarity against Trump. Ditto the UK decision not to pledge any additional money, when countries from Norway to the Netherlands are stumping up millions.

But that is not how ministers at the Department for International Development see it. They say they have been planning to host their own major global summit on family planning over the summer with the UN and that – far from ignoring the issue – the department has intensified UK aid efforts on family planning.

Observers might detect a sense of irritation that the UK will now be put in a position where it is a follower, rather than a leader, given that this week’s conference has been convened by the Dutch, Belgian and other northern European nations.

However, critics have warned that the determination of the department to forge its own path, rather than be perceived as embarrassing Trump, could leave charities in limbo, without specific pledges that their loss of support from the US will be matched elsewhere.

That uncertainty could have long-term consequences for reproductive health in developing countries. About half of all abortion procedures worldwide – more than 20m – are unsafe, with the vast majority in developing countries. About 68,000 women die annually after backstreet abortions, making it one of the leading causes of maternal mortality, according to the World Health Organization.

Five Labour MPs wrote in January to Patel to urge her to commit emergency funding to the She Decides effort, arguing that policymaking needed to be reactive to a volatile political climate. “We would implore you to take urgent steps on funding and policy as the Dutch government has, and as the UK government has done so previously, to mitigate the impact of this decision,” they wrote.

At least one of the MPs is speaking from experience. Gareth Thomas was a minister at DfID in 2006 when the Labour government publicly defied George W Bush’s own reinstatement of the global gag rule to pledge money for safe abortion services where US funding had been cut off.

At the time, the International Planned Parenthood Federation praised the bravery of the UK, saying they were “deeply grateful for the gesture not only financially but politically”.

Any kind of similar statement of thanks from charities in 2017 would be deeply unhelpful to the Conservative government in the post-Brexit era, connecting international aid spending to diplomacy.

Sources at the department see the decision by European and other governments to make immediate pledges to match the support as too hasty and say the scale of the funding gap from Trump’s order has not yet been fully calibrated. The UK’s 2006 funding pledge came five years after Bush’s order, and in a very different political climate.

Tories wary about plugging Trump gap in family planning funding

Be wary of research that website link mental unwell overall health with creativity or a substantial IQ | Dr Oliver Joe Robinson

The thought that extremely imaginative or intelligent folks are specifically vulnerable to psychological unwell well being has been around for a long time. “No great genius has ever existed with no some touch of madness” is attributed to Aristotle in 350BC, and more current examples of inventive types describing their afflictions with fantastic clarity are not challenging to uncover.

Sylvia Plath’s The Bell Jar and David Foster Wallace’s Infinite Jest are each achingly vivid portrayals of psychological unwell health and both make uncomfortable reading through in light of their author’s untimely deaths.

Related: New examine claims to find genetic link among creativity and mental illness

Bipolar disorder, previously referred to as manic depression, is a psychiatric disorder in which people oscillate among periods of mania and depression. It is 1 of the rarer psychiatric problems, affecting less than 1% of the population (assess that with key depressive disorder, which influences closer to 20% of us).

In common culture, the manic phase of bipolar disorder is often portrayed as currently being characterised by elevated mood and creativity. As the psychologist Kay Redfield Jamison puts it in her autobiography about her own experiences of bipolar disorder, An Unquiet Mind: “When you are substantial it is great. The ideas and feelings are quickly and regular like shooting stars, and you comply with them until you find far better and brighter ones.”

A paper published this week in the British Journal of Psychiatry reports that in a sample of 1,881 men and women, these who show the best 10% of “manic features” (measured at age 22-23 by a questionnaire acknowledged as the HCL-32) had IQ scores (measured when they had been eight years outdated) practically 10 points higher than these in the bottom ten% of manic traits. In other words, if you have a increased IQ when young, you may report higher manic traits as an grownup.

It is as a result seductive to speculate, as the write-up does, that “in evolutionary terms … there could be some selective benefit associated with propensity to significant recurrent ailments of mood such as bipolar disorder”. Without a doubt, 1 of the authors is quoted as saying: “One likelihood is that severe issues of mood – such as bipolar disorder – are the cost that human beings have had to pay out for far more adaptive traits such as intelligence, creativity and verbal proficiency.”

While this might hold for some sufferers, some of the time, we must also wonder how beneficial this trope is for the majority of individuals who endure from these problems.

In reality sufferers are as various as the society in which they dwell. That is to say, there are several who suffer from significant mood issues who are not especially creative or pushing the upper reaches of IQ. And even if they were, as a current evaluation in the British Journal of Psychiatry puts it: “By my reckoning if it was possible to remove all bipolar disorder in the population, creativity would only be decreased by .23%.”

We must also be specifically careful extrapolating a comparatively standardised metric this kind of as IQ on to one thing as flighty and ill defined as “creativity”. IQ does not map easily on to better lifestyle outcomes and is topic to cultural distinctions.

Perhaps much more importantly, nevertheless, mania is just as readily connected with disordered considering, irritability, and even psychotic experiences as it is with euphoric highs. As Kay Redfield Jamison puts it, “Somewhere, this changes. The rapidly suggestions are far as well quickly, and there are far also several mind-boggling confusion replaces clarity”, and in the end “you are irritable, angry, frightened, uncontrollable”.

As with all problems of the mind, the reality is never ever genuinely black and white.  It must also be noted that there is a gulf among “manic traits” in wholesome people and a full-blown manic disorder (the paper does not report if any of these people actually meet criteria for a disorder) and, as the authors of the existing study are rapid to level out, high IQ in and of itself does not confer a direct chance for manic traits, but probably in blend with other factors “such as publicity to maternal influenza in the womb or childhood sexual abuse”.

Psychiatric disorders are massively, intimidatingly, complex

Psychiatric issues are massively, intimidatingly complicated. As Tom Insel, head of the US National Institute of Mental Well being says: “Mental disorders are amid the most complex issues in medicine, with challenges at each degree from neurons to neighbourhoods. But, we know so small about mechanisms at each and every degree.”

Presently, a diagnosis of most psychiatric issues is based on self-reported signs (related to the questionnaire utilised in this review) but it is turning into more and more recognised that the exact same set of signs may possibly be brought on by myriad underlying mechanisms, all of which could call for fundamentally different treatment options.

Unlike practitioners in most branches of medicine, mental wellness pros have no genuinely aim tools with which to diagnose psychiatric problems. This is maybe unsurprising, given the complex interplay amongst setting, society and underlying biology in provoking psychological unwell overall health.

In the United kingdom, £9.75 is invested in investigation per particular person affected by psychological sickness – more than

100 occasions much less than the quantity spent on cancer study per patient (£1,571), however an urgent want to improve remedy and diagnosis stays. “The sooner we can intervene in bipolar the much better the end result,” the authors of the existing review say. There is minor to disagree with right here. But we are nevertheless a extended way off.

Be wary of research that website link mental unwell overall health with creativity or a substantial IQ | Dr Oliver Joe Robinson